The ISS is nothing more than a thinly veiled weapons platform cloaked as a space station. Rods from God is the ultimate weapon, inflicting nuclear scale devastation without the pesky fallout. Within our lifetimes expect to see an attack launched and the USA will claim that they had no part in it, when in reality they will be the instigating party with plausible deniability.
Why would the Rods from God project require a manned platform? Especially an international crew that would be likely to discover the device and report it back to their own respective countries?
Since the language of the law (page 3) requires the task force to plan for "unintended consequences of climate adaptation and mitigation," the study should be completed as requested, and the effect of human activity against the baseline ebb and flow of regional climate should be included on the chart as an "unintended consequence."
Well, not that i am into erotica, but I dislike being told what I am being allowed to read by private company.
You're not. A private company is deciding which products it wishes to sell and which it does not.
The problem with eBooks, though, is that in most implementations they can reach in and retroactively remove the books you've purchased. So even if they chose to sell a book and you chose to buy it, they can choose to un-sell the book to you if they decide the content is a problem for them.
No doubt part of the deal to get parents to accept them was that they would also be locked down at home. Of course, parents could just lock down their network at home too, but how many of them are going to get off their asses and do that when they can just bitch at the school to do the parenting for them instead?
What if the parents didn't agree to the deal? What if parents thought that the school's predetermined whitelist was too much? Or too little? Maybe the parents were parenting, and decided that their kids should have more rights than the school would like them to have.
Open only certain ports, that what students really need, like port 80 for www. They may even consider a whitelist of sites students can visit from the school network.
You can proxy over standard https port 443, so blocking proxying is mostly a dead end.
You'd have to stick with the whitelist.
Yeah how about trying "We were ordered to do it by the US government and we can't give you details because a) national security and b) gag order". Seems to work for the government, why can't it work for Google?
Because the government will be able to declare in court that they didn't do it, and Google won't have proof that they did?
That's covered, because the gag order gags itself, so you can't show it to the court.
The next time I have to travel across a border, I need to remember to leave the real laptop at home and bring the old & busted. I want to see them try and get data off of it.
Maybe I'll even pull the hard drive.
The cellular and phone networks in the US actually have batteries and generators to power them so people can use them when power is out to report those outages. For the POTS network I think the backup is federally mandated, not sure on the cell network.
The cellular backups only last for a day or two, at most. In the northeast we lost power from hurricane Sandy last year for a few days, and the cellular networks didn't last all that long.
Fortunately, they're also high on the priority list for restoring power, so they were some of the first things to come back.
And we in the south have a hard enough time with you yanks!
If you're not from America, a Yankee is someone from America.
If you're in America, a Yankee is someone from north of the Mason Dixon line.
If you're north of the Mason Dixon line, a Yankee is someone from the northeast.
If you're in the northeast, a Yankee is someone from New England. (which does not include New York, thank you.)
If you're in New England, a Yankee is someone from Vermont (though I hear New Hampshire in this spot a lot, too.)
If you're in Vermont (or New Hampshire) a Yankee is someone who eats pie for breakfast.
(Disclaimer: I'm from New Hampshire, and pie makes the best breakfast whenever possible.)
Here we see the beginnings of real, hard evidence of just how disastrous the NSA's recent actions are to the best interests of the country.
Sorry, but this is all Snowden's fault. If it hadn't been for him everything would still be working as designed and no one would be (provably anyway) the wiser.
I think this is sarcasm, but my sarcasm and bullshitium detector has been on the fritz ever since Snowden's documents went live and the NSA started the spin machine.
Whilst I certainly wouldn't disagree with you over the importance of encryption...well, put it this way: when was the last time you encrypted a letter you dropped in the mailbox?
The point is that it's about as much hassle for somebody at the post office to steam-open an envelope with nobody being none the wiser for it as it is for an ISP to snoop on people's mail.
...
It is just as much hassle to open a letter passing through the post office by steaming it open as it is for a lawyer somewhere to subpoena and get the contents of an email you sent through gmail.
However, it is much easier for the NSA to use their backdoor into gmail to make an automated request for all of a person's emails and all of the emails of everyone that emailed them and store that information. Even if they decide that they don't need that information, it will still get stored, and that stored information could be leaked. Just the other day we heard about how Snowden used the "brilliant" tactic of privilege elevation and masquerading as other users to get data. If the NSA's system is designed such that one person can do this, you can bet that there are plenty more who do it and put the information to their own use without feeling the need to go public with it.
If an area the size of Greenland is depressed 300 meters, I'd wonder if it is deformation of the Earth's crust and the whole thing could be pushed back up by internal pressures when the weight is gone. Not assuming anything, just wondering if that could happen and what the impact on sea levels would be if it did.
That's the amount of ash that escapes the controls. Look at how little it is as compared to the captured ash. Put on the same scale, 100g/MWh vs 85,000,000g/MWh retained fly ash & bottom ash.
"the fly ash emitted by a power plant—a by-product from burning coal for electricity—carries into the surrounding environment 100 times more radiation than a nuclear power plant producing the same amount of energy"
The quote isn't actually comparing coal waste to nuclear waste, it compares coal waste to overall nuclear power production. No nuclear power plant can be 100% shielded from all escaping radiation, nor can containment of radioactive waste, unless you build a vault so thick that no gamma ray can pass entirely through it, which is statistically practically impossible. Therefore, nuclear power production leaks a very small amount of radiation. At a certain distance from the reactor or waste storage, the radiation emitted from the reactor or waste drops to a point where it becomes indistinguishable from local background radiation. It is in this range that the radiation has added measurably to the environment. In a proper plant design, this range is within the plant's perimeter, and ideally within the containment structure itself.
So, no, it isn't saying escaped/released nuclear waste, it is referring to the radiation emissions from nuclear power production, which some percentage of will pass through the available shielding.
At some point, when I have some free time, I'll try and work out the relative radiations of actual waste products, out of curiosity. For reference, coal fly and bottom ash, together, release 5-6 (up to 8) picocuries of radiation per gram. A modern coal plant produces fly ash that leaves the stack at about 100g/MWh (going directly into the environment, uncontrolled) and produce 85kg/kWh of ash (recovered fly & bottom ash). Therefore a typical coal plant producing 3.5TWh/year creates waste emitting 1.8 curies/year, or 66.6 GBq (GigaBecquerels)/year. I don't have numbers handy for the waste products per power produced for nuclear.
Of course, I'll agree that this is somewhat overstating the case. When stored as a unit in a giant landfill, the vast majority of this radiation will never leave the landfill, because the material surrounding it will act as shielding. Only radiation emitted within, say, the outermost 10 meters or so will have any significant chance of reaching the outside world.
But the point isn't really that coal ash is a particularly dangerous radioactive substance, it is that we analyze nuclear power to an extreme but other sources of power get a free pass because they look easy to understand. When analyzed side by side, taking all factors into account, nuclear power, especially modern plants, should come out on top. At least until we have a significant fusion capability, or solar becomes significantly cheaper, more efficient, and lower in production toxicity.
Did you read the editors note? Did you understand it?
So in yur country roughly a 1% equivalent of the radiation in fly ash escapes from nuclear waste into the environment? How fucking bad is your nuckear waste stored?
It is also depressing that fly ash still escapes into the environment in your country:D
I cited my source, and if it is wrong, as sources sometimes are, then I'm ready and willing to look at your refuting evidence. If all you're going to do is engage in attacks, then your position isn't one I'm likely to consider, even if it's right.
Fly ash can be 100 times as radioactive as nuclear waste
That is complete nonsense.
The highest radioactivity in fly ash from uran and thorium is barely at the edge that it is economically worthwhile to use fly ash as a resource to produce uran.
There are two kinds of nuclear waste: spend fuel rots and process materials that are left over when spend fuel rods get recycled to craft new rods.
Both kinds of waste are easy thousand times more radioactive than fly ash. (And both kinds use up much more space than the general public believes).
Just because something is radioactive doesn't mean it is useful and able to be used to produce uranium. Yes, nuclear waste is very radioactive, per kg of waste, and fly ash is not very radioactive, per kg of waste. When compared to kWh of generated power, however, fly ash contains more decaying atoms than the waste from a nuclear reactor that produced the same kWh of generated power.
Well, its 14 thousand vs 3 million, but yes you're right, I was citing the pure uranium numbers and not the 'natural' uranium numbers, before enrichment.
one pound uranium == 16,000 tons coals. one pound thorium == 300 pound uranium == 4,800,000
For clarity sakes you did not mention in what way they are ==, is it in damage to the environment, ability to generate power, what, is it cost per kw production..
Power plants typically take the heat generated by their fuel, which must then be converted into electrical energy, generally by heating water to steam to turn turbines.
With that considered, the kWh below is of the heat output. Conversion to electricity is within the usual turbine efficiencies.
1kg of uranium can generate 24,000,000 kWh
1kg of coal can generate 8 kWh
3,000,000kg of coal can generate 24,000,000 kWh
Which is to say, 1kg uranium = 3,000,000 kg coal
Then there's the fly ash problem. Fly ash can be 100 times as radioactive as nuclear waste, per kWh generated, and much of it goes up a flue. Nuclear waste is entirely contained unless there's a spill, and spills are tightly monitored. A coal plant produces about 8% of the input's weight as fly ash. Therefore, that 3,000,000kg of coal produces 240,000kg of fly ash. The coal industry desperately wants you to believe that fly ash is harmless, but it contains numerous toxins and if used near water sources will leach heavy metals into the water supply. Nuclear waste, by contrast, is well contained and small. Nuclear plants produce a bit more waste in output relative to input, because the radiation gets into the surrounding materials which then have to be managed as well as the fuel, but we're talking an input of 1kg of fuel generating perhaps 2-10kg of waste, versus coal's 240,000kg of waste for the same kWh of fuel.
Slashdot Mirror
The ISS is nothing more than a thinly veiled weapons platform cloaked as a space station. Rods from God is the ultimate weapon, inflicting nuclear scale devastation without the pesky fallout. Within our lifetimes expect to see an attack launched and the USA will claim that they had no part in it, when in reality they will be the instigating party with plausible deniability.
Why would the Rods from God project require a manned platform? Especially an international crew that would be likely to discover the device and report it back to their own respective countries?
Not exactly the kind of "fool" you hear of on those Dumb Crook News segments in the media
Except for the segments where the Dumb Crook was found out because he admitted his crime.
Since the language of the law (page 3) requires the task force to plan for "unintended consequences of climate adaptation and mitigation," the study should be completed as requested, and the effect of human activity against the baseline ebb and flow of regional climate should be included on the chart as an "unintended consequence."
MY MONITAR WIL NOT TURN ON!!11!!
Please make sure the power cable is plugged in.
IS TO DARK T0O SEE WHAT I'M DOING THE POWR IS OUT.
Well, not that i am into erotica, but I dislike being told what I am being allowed to read by private company.
You're not. A private company is deciding which products it wishes to sell and which it does not.
The problem with eBooks, though, is that in most implementations they can reach in and retroactively remove the books you've purchased. So even if they chose to sell a book and you chose to buy it, they can choose to un-sell the book to you if they decide the content is a problem for them.
No doubt part of the deal to get parents to accept them was that they would also be locked down at home. Of course, parents could just lock down their network at home too, but how many of them are going to get off their asses and do that when they can just bitch at the school to do the parenting for them instead?
What if the parents didn't agree to the deal? What if parents thought that the school's predetermined whitelist was too much? Or too little? Maybe the parents were parenting, and decided that their kids should have more rights than the school would like them to have.
Block vpn at proxy level.
Open only certain ports, that what students really need, like port 80 for www. They may even consider a whitelist of sites students can visit from the school network.
You can proxy over standard https port 443, so blocking proxying is mostly a dead end. You'd have to stick with the whitelist.
Next time be sure to add a backslash at the beginning of your commute.
Yeah how about trying "We were ordered to do it by the US government and we can't give you details because a) national security and b) gag order". Seems to work for the government, why can't it work for Google?
Because the government will be able to declare in court that they didn't do it, and Google won't have proof that they did?
That's covered, because the gag order gags itself, so you can't show it to the court.
The next time I have to travel across a border, I need to remember to leave the real laptop at home and bring the old & busted. I want to see them try and get data off of it. Maybe I'll even pull the hard drive.
The cellular and phone networks in the US actually have batteries and generators to power them so people can use them when power is out to report those outages. For the POTS network I think the backup is federally mandated, not sure on the cell network.
The cellular backups only last for a day or two, at most. In the northeast we lost power from hurricane Sandy last year for a few days, and the cellular networks didn't last all that long. Fortunately, they're also high on the priority list for restoring power, so they were some of the first things to come back.
And we in the south have a hard enough time with you yanks!
If you're not from America, a Yankee is someone from America.
If you're in America, a Yankee is someone from north of the Mason Dixon line.
If you're north of the Mason Dixon line, a Yankee is someone from the northeast.
If you're in the northeast, a Yankee is someone from New England. (which does not include New York, thank you.)
If you're in New England, a Yankee is someone from Vermont (though I hear New Hampshire in this spot a lot, too.)
If you're in Vermont (or New Hampshire) a Yankee is someone who eats pie for breakfast.
(Disclaimer: I'm from New Hampshire, and pie makes the best breakfast whenever possible.)
Here we see the beginnings of real, hard evidence of just how disastrous the NSA's recent actions are to the best interests of the country.
Sorry, but this is all Snowden's fault. If it hadn't been for him everything would still be working as designed and no one would be (provably anyway) the wiser.
I think this is sarcasm, but my sarcasm and bullshitium detector has been on the fritz ever since Snowden's documents went live and the NSA started the spin machine.
Whilst I certainly wouldn't disagree with you over the importance of encryption...well, put it this way: when was the last time you encrypted a letter you dropped in the mailbox?
The point is that it's about as much hassle for somebody at the post office to steam-open an envelope with nobody being none the wiser for it as it is for an ISP to snoop on people's mail.
It is just as much hassle to open a letter passing through the post office by steaming it open as it is for a lawyer somewhere to subpoena and get the contents of an email you sent through gmail.
However, it is much easier for the NSA to use their backdoor into gmail to make an automated request for all of a person's emails and all of the emails of everyone that emailed them and store that information. Even if they decide that they don't need that information, it will still get stored, and that stored information could be leaked. Just the other day we heard about how Snowden used the "brilliant" tactic of privilege elevation and masquerading as other users to get data. If the NSA's system is designed such that one person can do this, you can bet that there are plenty more who do it and put the information to their own use without feeling the need to go public with it.
If an area the size of Greenland is depressed 300 meters, I'd wonder if it is deformation of the Earth's crust and the whole thing could be pushed back up by internal pressures when the weight is gone. Not assuming anything, just wondering if that could happen and what the impact on sea levels would be if it did.
Does this account for what would happen when Greenland floats back up?
that Greenland is called Green again?
Propaganda. Erik the Red named it that in 985 AD to get people to colonize it with him.
That's the amount of ash that escapes the controls. Look at how little it is as compared to the captured ash. Put on the same scale, 100g/MWh vs 85,000,000g/MWh retained fly ash & bottom ash.
The quote isn't actually comparing coal waste to nuclear waste, it compares coal waste to overall nuclear power production. No nuclear power plant can be 100% shielded from all escaping radiation, nor can containment of radioactive waste, unless you build a vault so thick that no gamma ray can pass entirely through it, which is statistically practically impossible. Therefore, nuclear power production leaks a very small amount of radiation. At a certain distance from the reactor or waste storage, the radiation emitted from the reactor or waste drops to a point where it becomes indistinguishable from local background radiation. It is in this range that the radiation has added measurably to the environment. In a proper plant design, this range is within the plant's perimeter, and ideally within the containment structure itself.
So, no, it isn't saying escaped/released nuclear waste, it is referring to the radiation emissions from nuclear power production, which some percentage of will pass through the available shielding.
At some point, when I have some free time, I'll try and work out the relative radiations of actual waste products, out of curiosity. For reference, coal fly and bottom ash, together, release 5-6 (up to 8) picocuries of radiation per gram. A modern coal plant produces fly ash that leaves the stack at about 100g/MWh (going directly into the environment, uncontrolled) and produce 85kg/kWh of ash (recovered fly & bottom ash). Therefore a typical coal plant producing 3.5TWh/year creates waste emitting 1.8 curies/year, or 66.6 GBq (GigaBecquerels)/year. I don't have numbers handy for the waste products per power produced for nuclear.
Of course, I'll agree that this is somewhat overstating the case. When stored as a unit in a giant landfill, the vast majority of this radiation will never leave the landfill, because the material surrounding it will act as shielding. Only radiation emitted within, say, the outermost 10 meters or so will have any significant chance of reaching the outside world.
But the point isn't really that coal ash is a particularly dangerous radioactive substance, it is that we analyze nuclear power to an extreme but other sources of power get a free pass because they look easy to understand. When analyzed side by side, taking all factors into account, nuclear power, especially modern plants, should come out on top. At least until we have a significant fusion capability, or solar becomes significantly cheaper, more efficient, and lower in production toxicity.
Did you read the editors note? Did you understand it? So in yur country roughly a 1% equivalent of the radiation in fly ash escapes from nuclear waste into the environment? How fucking bad is your nuckear waste stored?
It is also depressing that fly ash still escapes into the environment in your country :D
I cited my source, and if it is wrong, as sources sometimes are, then I'm ready and willing to look at your refuting evidence. If all you're going to do is engage in attacks, then your position isn't one I'm likely to consider, even if it's right.
Sorry, that is an internet myth. You are completely wrong.
Editor's note citation: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste&page=2
Fly ash can be 100 times as radioactive as nuclear waste That is complete nonsense.
The highest radioactivity in fly ash from uran and thorium is barely at the edge that it is economically worthwhile to use fly ash as a resource to produce uran.
There are two kinds of nuclear waste: spend fuel rots and process materials that are left over when spend fuel rods get recycled to craft new rods.
Both kinds of waste are easy thousand times more radioactive than fly ash. (And both kinds use up much more space than the general public believes).
Just because something is radioactive doesn't mean it is useful and able to be used to produce uranium. Yes, nuclear waste is very radioactive, per kg of waste, and fly ash is not very radioactive, per kg of waste. When compared to kWh of generated power, however, fly ash contains more decaying atoms than the waste from a nuclear reactor that produced the same kWh of generated power.
Well, its 14 thousand vs 3 million, but yes you're right, I was citing the pure uranium numbers and not the 'natural' uranium numbers, before enrichment.
one pound uranium == 16,000 tons coals. one pound thorium == 300 pound uranium == 4,800,000
For clarity sakes you did not mention in what way they are ==, is it in damage to the environment, ability to generate power, what, is it cost per kw production..
Power plants typically take the heat generated by their fuel, which must then be converted into electrical energy, generally by heating water to steam to turn turbines. With that considered, the kWh below is of the heat output. Conversion to electricity is within the usual turbine efficiencies.
Then there's the fly ash problem. Fly ash can be 100 times as radioactive as nuclear waste, per kWh generated, and much of it goes up a flue. Nuclear waste is entirely contained unless there's a spill, and spills are tightly monitored. A coal plant produces about 8% of the input's weight as fly ash. Therefore, that 3,000,000kg of coal produces 240,000kg of fly ash. The coal industry desperately wants you to believe that fly ash is harmless, but it contains numerous toxins and if used near water sources will leach heavy metals into the water supply. Nuclear waste, by contrast, is well contained and small. Nuclear plants produce a bit more waste in output relative to input, because the radiation gets into the surrounding materials which then have to be managed as well as the fuel, but we're talking an input of 1kg of fuel generating perhaps 2-10kg of waste, versus coal's 240,000kg of waste for the same kWh of fuel.
And honestly, if you need to smear Zuckerberg, there's the fact that he runs Facebook.
Like.